I'm sure I'll like him, too - I just don't think he can bring a lot of people in to the theaters.

Here is the Yahoo! Article:

Daniel Craig Unveiled As New James Bond
37 minutes ago

LONDON - Daniel Craig was introduced Friday as the first blond James Bond and only the second Englishman to star as Agent 007 in the movie series.

Craig's selection was revealed as he was whisked down the Thames River aboard a military boat to a news conference.

Craig replaces Pierce Brosnan in the role of the suave spy in "Casino Royale," due in theaters next year.

"I'm speechless," the star said, after posing for photos with producer Barbara Broccoli and director Martin Campbell.

"Daniel is a superb actor who has all the qualities needed to bring a contemporary edge to the role," Broccoli and Campbell said in a statement.

Producers announced last year that they were seeking a replacement for Brosnan, who has played Bond in the last four films.

Craig, 37, is the first blond actor to play agent 007. Relatively unknown outside Britain, he has had a busy career that includes roles in the landmark 1990s British TV drama "Our Friends in the North" and films including "The Mother," "Enduring Love" and "Layer Cake."

He played Paul Newman's sinister son in "Road to Perdition," was poet Ted Hughes opposite Gwyneth Paltrow's Sylvia Plath in "Sylvia" and appeared in this year's thriller "The Jacket" with Adrien Brody.

Craig is also the tabloids' dream Bond. He once dated headline-grabbing model Kate Moss and has been linked to Sienna Miller, his "Layer Cake" co-star and on-off fiancee of Jude Law.

Earlier this year, Craig praised 007 as "an iconographic figure in moviemaking."

"I think you'd have to be stupid not to consider something like that," he said, but added that he hadn't given the role "any serious thought."

The film's producers tried to keep their decision secret, but Craig's mother told the tabloid Sun newspaper she was "thrilled to bits."

Ian Fleming's first Bond novel, originally published in 1953, "Casino Royale" is one of the few Bond adventures not to feature the MI6 gadget-maker Q. It was previously filmed as a 1967 spoof starring Peter Sellers.

Before Friday, speculation about the new Bond also included British actors
Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Gerard Butler and Ewan McGregor, Irishman Colin Farrell and Australians Hugh Jackman, Heath Ledger and Eric Bana.


Aside from Ledger, I would rather see any of those actors over Craig. I just have a mental block against him. He may be a great actor, etc, but I just can't see him being a great Bond.

For mgm/sony making daniel craig james bond over pierce brosnan is throwing away 250 million dollars or more. daniel craig is not ugly but at 50 brosnan is a lot better looking than craig. nothing about craig says james bond. they wanted a younger james bond and this guy is not young looking at all. pierce brosnan was a good james bond they just need less invisible cars and a better story and he could have been great. daniel craig equals george lazenby and timothy dalton. the next james bond movie is doomed. daniel craig might be a fine actor but he is not james bond and not many people will show up in the theater to see him play the role even if he is shockingly good in the role.

Sean Connery was pretty much an unknown when he took the role.

I would prefer Brosnan myself, but Craig has my full support. I hope Casino Royale gives the franchise a shot in the butt it's needed since GoldenEye.

I didn't mind a new Bond, but the fact they delayed the film which should of been out this fall with Brosnan, then a new 007 in 2007.

[;)]Next they'll offer the role to Terrence Howard... then Jessica Biel.[/;)]

That would have been ideal. Brosnan certainly deserved a better send off than Die Another Day. Especially all the money he has raked in for the company.

I agree. My interest in a new Bond flick just dropped to 0. A future trailer may change my mind, but that is doubtful. I'll wait for the dvd. I'm sure I won't be the only consumer thinking the same thing.

I'll see the movie and judge then.

Never had much interest in the new Bond films since Goldeneye. But maybe they're trying to take the franchise in an entirely different direction and trying for a darker, grittier James Bond with Daniel Craig. That might work. I mean if Bond is a spy whose had his fair share of fisticuffs, he probably wouldn't look like a pretty boy any more anyway :shrug: Can't tell till we see the first frames of the next film.

Or maybe if they really want to shake up the franchise, they should keep the Bond girl(s) the same in each film but get a different actor to play Bond in every new film.

say it aint so.

Man, this is a tough crowd! I don't mind Craig, and certainly am not surprised to see him picked as he's been the odds-on favorite for over one year. If the producers were looking for a franchise reset (like Batman and Superman are getting), then Brosnan was out of the question. That's okay as his films since Goldeneye were tired and uninventive, just big-budget messes. I agree they treated him badly, but remember these producers are VERY sensitive and ego-maniacal and I think they've been put off by some of Pierce's comments lately.
My choice for a replacement has been Clive Owen, but he's probably too big a star and probably wasn't interested in such a huge typecasting role. I hope that was the reason Owen didn't get the part instead of trying to find someone cheaper (I remember in the early days of Brosnan, not only did they screw him by paying him a relative pittance, they got him to hawk all sorts of products like BMW and Visa in character on TV-- sad).
Anyway, I'm certainly willing to give Craig a chance. I remember this board burning up with complaints over the casting of Elijah Wood and Sean Astin in LOTR and over Tobey Maguire in Spider-man.

This is funny because I had the same thought.

I'll wait and see how he looks when they have him all "Bonded-up"... but I have a bad feeling about this.

oh really? :rolleyes:

BTW, here is Daniel's first official photograph as 007 taken from the official "Casino Royale" website htttp://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/site/

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/5...aigbond8sc.jpg

http://commanderbond.net/gallery/cr_press/007logo1.jpg

He looks short :p

Yes, really. He looks like a Bond villain much more than he looks like James Bond. You can dress him up all you want and put the gun in his hand and he still looks like a pretender.


To me, that looks like a guy trying to be James Bond, rather than someone who is James Bond. He just doesn't look right.

I guess I wasn't too far off the mark a few posts ago when I said that Daniel Craig might work if they were going for a darker, gritter Bond. This from http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?...=2904&catid=2:

Casino Royale - 14-10-05
Casino Royale will be `grittier`, key elements to remain

Director Martin Campbell confirmed at today's press conference that "Casino Royale" will be a "grittier" movie.

Although the gadgets and technology will be reduced and characters enhance, Campbell reiterated that key elements attributed to the success of the series will still be there in good measure.

The direction of the 21st film will not be a "reboot", more an exploration of untapped areas.

"It's not a question of redefining, it's a matter of going somewhere they haven't before", said Daniel Craig.

He backed up Campbell's comments on the screenplay. "We've got an incredible script", he added.

Producer Michael G. Wilson said, "We want to do it the right way. It's going to take an approach we haven't taken before."

Campbell also commented on some of the aspects to the script. "I love all the suits and bow-ties, all of that. [In Casino Royale] you'll learn the ingredients of the Martini. Perhaps how he gets the Aston Martin."

That picture didn't exactly help convince me. He looks more like a henchman.

If EON didn't want a younger Bond (I'm thinking in his twenties like the rumors suggested) - then why would they not want their most bankable star give a proper goodbye to the series? The fact that Brosnan couldn't be considered due to a "reboot" makes no sense. Roger Moore followed up Moonraker with For Your Eyes Only.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service will forever go down in history as the one that would have been the greatest Bond movie ever if it had starred Connery. I'm seeing another lost opportunity with Casino Royale .

I see nothing wrong with the pick. I'll wait until a movie comes out to truly decide.

I'm adding this to my list of movie tragedies that have occurred in the past week - including Serenity's box office take and Wallace & Gromit's warehouse burning down.

The same can be said of any actor that had to take over the reigns of another.

Did Roger Moore look right after Connery?
Did Lazenby?
Did Dalton?
Did Brosnan? <-- bad comparison since he has been touted as a Bond since Remington Steele.

Bond is character. Not the actor that portrays him.

Oh well. Farewell, Mr. Bond.

Never had much of an interest in the Bond series--through all actor incarnations--but this may generate some interest for people like myself who saw the movies as strangely goofy and self-important, more about continuing a tradition for a more literate Star Wars nerd crowd, than really making good movies.

Yeah, Brosnan was urbane and an ideal compliment to Connery, but he is also a bland, stick-in-the-ass actor with very little energy in my opinion. If this new series with Graig--who, for 36 looks a tad heroin addict worn--does really bring a new 'dark and gritty' aspect, then it may give a wider appeal, especially to the primary box office audience of teens and twenty-somethings that Hollywood needs to lure. And to be honest, isn't the primary audience for these Bond movies a little up there in age to begin with? It evidently needs to be freshened if the studios and producers want to continue the character for a newer generation.

Graig, in everything I've seen him in (Sylvia, Layer Cake, Road to Perdition) seems as though he is quite a good actor.

A lot of you folks seem to forget that Dalton was "dark and gritty" and moviegoers stayed away. I thought Timothy's two films taught Barbara Broccoli that fans didn't want a darker, humorless, virtually gadget-free Bond. They like the movie-version of him (babes, gadgets, "Q", one-liners) more than the book version.

Incidently, I don't know if it's been mentioned, but SONY desperately wanted Pierce back for this movie...but I guess Broccoli has final say on who plays the character and she's got some kind of obsession with Craig.

They've started work on the 22nd film as well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4337224.stm

Bah. The publicity photo of Daniel Craig as James Bond, I have no problem. But to take Bond in a "new direction" with a more "dark", "gritty", "blah", "blah" and "blah". Is pretty funny since it was Brosnan fault if they as in Ms. Broccli (sp.) decided that Bond should have a side kick in 2 of his 4 movies.

I think Brosnan would have been fine in Casino Royale, its like with Connery they started simple and got more effects laden and your main actor complains. They go with Lazenby and we get a more serious Bond.

I don't want my Bond be like so serious that we have another Dalton's License to Kill movie which was to realistic for a Bond film. But that's just me...